ROBERT MILLER, ETC.
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court declined to accept jurisdiction and denied the petition for discretionary review based on the controlling precedent established in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[1] In Engle-progeny tobacco liability cases, proof of fraudulent concealment requires proof of reliance on a specific statement by the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“proof of fraudulent concealment in an Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a specific statement by an Engle defendant”
Justice Labarga's concurring opinion expressing his disagreement with the Prentice holding while acknowledging it is controlling law
Robert Miller brought a case against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, which was reviewed by the First District Court of Appeal. The case involved tobacc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fraudulent Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
Supreme Court of Florida
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2022
CASE NO.: SC21-1596 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 1D20-467; 162008CA000401LXXXMA
ROBERT MILLER, ETC. vs. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
COMPANY
Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
Upon review of the response to this Court’s order to show cause dated May 18, 2022, and the reply, the Court has determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction in this case. See Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 2022). The petition for discretionary review is, therefore, denied. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2).
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result only with an opinion. FRANCIS, J., did not participate.
LABARGA, J., concurring in result only.
Because I strongly believe that proof of fraudulent concealment in an Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a specific statement by an Engle defendant, I dissented to this Court’s holding in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 2022).
CASE NO.: SC21-1596 Page Two
In this case, I recognize, as does the petitioner, that this Court’s holding in Prentice is controlling. However, I reaffirm my dissent in Prentice, and I concur in result only to the extent that Prentice requires this result. A True Copy Test:
ks Served: